Articles Tagged with Tenant

by

In the wake of the financial disaster created by the COVID pandemic, many New Jersey landlords and tenants have become familiar with Executive Order 106, which states that no lockouts of residential tenants can occur until two months after the State of Emergency has ended.  As of the date of our last blog, it appeared that the State of Emergency would end in early July.  However, after two extensions, the State of Emergency is now scheduled to expire in September.  Of course, we cannot predict whether an additional extension will be granted, but it would be an understatement to say that we are very concerned.

Concurrent to the State of Emergency is the fact that the Courts simply cannot open due to safety concerns. Consequently, if you are one of the unlucky landlords who filed your matter after the middle of February and your matter did not get reached before the Courts closed on March 16, you may be waiting a very long time for your matter to get scheduled for trial.  We estimate that there are currently 45,000 Landlord Tenant cases in the New Jersey Courts that are still waiting for trial dates.

In the meantime, the Court is also eager to resume hearing cases and they have considered alternate ways to do so.  These methods include online hearings for those litigants who have access to computers.

Continue Reading

by

During the past several weeks, our office has fielded hundreds of phone calls and emails from anxious clients (and concerned attorneys), who have all been wondering when we will resume having landlord tenant trials in New Jersey.  Unfortunately, as of now, there is still no plan as to when (and how) the Courts plan on scheduling landlord tenant trials, amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.  At this point, the decision is in the hands of the State Judiciary, which obviously has some very serious and legitimate concerns about ensuring the safety of their staff and the guests of the courthouses throughout New Jersey.  Consequently, on June 12, the Judiciary posted their Fourth Omnibus Order Fourth Omnibus Order, which establishes a schedule for resuming some Court operations, but with regard to Landlord Tenant matters, the Order sets forth that “trials continue to be suspended until further notice.”

Clearing the Backlog

Since the New Jersey Courts halted eviction hearings on March 16, they have accumulated more than 30,000 landlord tenant cases that are still waiting to be heard.  Clearing this backlog will be essential to the Court’s plan moving forward.  A few weeks ago, I participated in a conference call with the Judge and the staff of one vicinage, and the Court staff proposed that tenants would be given a survey to determine whether they would be available to appear in Court via an Internet conference.  By using this method, it has been the hope of the judiciary that a large percentage of their matters could avoid in person appearances.  Other courts have also proposed their own ideas, which have included staggering the role call times so that only a litigants would appear at a time.  In either case, it is clear that the prior method of conducting landlord tenant court, which has always involved several hundred people crowding into a room and waiting for their names to be called, will no longer work.

Continue Reading

by

During the past few weeks, our office has been reporting on New Jersey’s restrictions on evictions during the COVID-19 pandemic.  At the core of these temporary measures is Executive Order 106, which generally prohibits lockouts from taking place until two full months after the State of Emergency has ended.  The State of New Jersey law does not, however, prohibit the landlord from filing eviction actions and it does not prohibit the Court from entering Judgments for Possession against tenants who cannot pay their rent.  Rather, New Jersey’s Executive Order only temporarily delays the lockouts of tenants.  In the meantime, many of our clients have asked us about a new Federal Law that prohibits evictions and whether it is similar to the New Jersey law.  The Federal Law, titled H.R. 748 (also known as the “Cares Act”) imposes several restrictions that are seemingly more onerous than the New Jersey law; however, the Federal Law is really much more limited in the scope of the people who will be affected by it.

In the Cares Act, Section No. 4023, entitled “Forbearance of Residential Mortgage Loan Payments for Multifamily Properties with Federally Backed Loans,” the Statute reads “a multifamily borrower that receives a forbearance under this section may not, for the duration of the forbearance, evict or initiate the eviction of a tenant from a dwelling unit located in or on the applicable property solely for nonpayment of rent or other fees or charges; or charge any late fees, penalties, or other charges to a tenant…”  The Statute further states that “a multifamily borrower that receives a forbearance under this section may not require a tenant to vacate a dwelling unit located in or on the applicable property before the date that is 30 days after the date on which the borrower provides the tenant with a notice to vacate and may not issue a notice to vacate… until after the expiration of the forbearance.”    While Section 4023 appears, at first glance, to indicate that landlords should not charge late fees or file evictions at this time, it is important to note that Section 4023 only applies to landlords of multifamily properties with Federally backed loans, in cases where the landlord has asked for a forbearance of the loan.

Similar to Section 4023 of the Cares Act, Section 4024 of the Cares Act also generally applies to landlords of multifamily properties with Federally backed loans.  However, Section 4024 contains no statement limiting its scope to just properties in which the landlord has asked for a forbearance on the loan.  The text of Section 4024 further reads that “During the 120-day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the lessor… may not… initiate a legal action to recover possession… from the tenant for nonpayment of rent or other fees or charges…”  Put simply, under Section 4024 of the Cares Act, if you are a landlord a multifamily building and you have a Federally backed loan, you cannot file an eviction prior to July 29, 2020!

Continue Reading

by

Our office remains open and we are closely monitoring the quickly developing effects of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.  During the past few days, we have received several calls from our clients, who concerned about the effects of the moratorium on evictions.  As resources become available and new information is released, we will keep you up to date.  In the meantime, we are aware that there is a lot of seemingly conflicting information regarding delays in evictions.  In this article, we will explain the details of some of the new temporary laws that may affect our clients during the next few months. 

Filing and Scheduling Eviction Hearings

During this time, we can still file eviction actions and enter into payment agreements with tenants.  While eviction hearing dates have been slightly delayed during this emergency, these delays are precautionary due to social distancing requirements, and is not related to economic factors.  Therefore, we expect that the New Jersey Courts will resume conducting eviction hearings as soon as it is deemed safe to resume public gatherings.

Continue Reading

by

On Sunday, March 15, 2020, our office published an urgent update regarding some of the recent emergency measures that had been instituted by the New Jersey Judiciary in order to limit the spread of the coronavirus.  Our article specifically focused on landlord tenant proceedings, which are usually grouped together by the Court in high volume, with as many as 300 cases being heard on a single date.  In light of the recent health risks associated with large groupings of people, the Judiciary had decided, in the interests of caution, to delay all eviction actions, scheduled for dates between March 16 through March 27.  As of this time, we have removed that update since we believe there will be more updates coming shortly, with new legislation currently pending.  Please check often for more updates, and most importantly, please stay safe.

by

For nearly 50 years, most of New Jersey’s residential tenants have been protected by the vast set of Statutes, known simply as The Anti-Eviction Act (“The Act”).   Throughout the years the Act has undergone various, but generally minor, revisions.  However, amidst these changes, eviction complaints based on non-payment of rent have remained relatively straightforward.  Most landlords are aware of the following two rules with regard to nonpayment of rent cases:

  1. If the tenant pays the rent that is due by the day of the eviction hearing, the eviction action must be dismissed.
  2. If the tenant does not pay the rent that is due by the day of the eviction hearing, the landlord shall be awarded a Judgment for Possession, and may file the appropriate application to schedule a lockout of the tenant.
Continue Reading

by

justice_srb_2In last month’s blog, our office presented Part One of our discussion on our recommendations to an arbitration board with regard a commercial landlord tenant matter, in which the tenant withheld rent in due to alleged habitability defects.   In this month’s blog, we continue our discussion of our analysis of that matter.

In most cases, the Court is loath to construe the Tenant’s good faith actions to enforce a contract as a default of the contract.   Like most default provisions found in commercial leases, the default in the lease in this matter was not curable. Therefore, in the event that the Tribunal were to declare a default in this matter, it is clear that the Tenant would not only forfeit the tenancy, but would also forfeit the benefit from the substantial investment he made in preparing the premises for the current use. Under the matter of Mandia v. Applegate, 310 N.J. Super 435, 447 (App. Div. 1998), “[l]anguage which may defeat an estate must be strictly construed and always against… a forfeiture.” In the matter of Vineland Shopping Center, Inc. v. DeMarco, 35 N.J. 459, 465 (1961), the Court held that “[i]n a proper case, equity will relieve a Tenant from forfeiture of a lease by reason of non-payment of money where performance has been made.

In the pendent matter, the Tenant defaulted in the lease by failing to pay rent. While the Tenant probably had other mechanisms of compelling the Landlord to make the requested repairs, the Tenant in this matter did not have a lot of good alternatives. Notwithstanding the clear statement contained in the written lease, we were required to determine whether it would be equitable for us to terminate the tenancy of someone who was only trying to compel the Landlord to make repairs that the Landlord was responsible to make. In the matter of Urdang v. Muse, 114 N.J. Super 372 (Cty. Dist. Ct. 1971), the Court held that “the Court may under its equitable powers, as enunciated in Vineland Shopping Center, relieve against forfeiture. This it may do despite the fact that defaults have taken place … The essence of the power to relieve against forfeiture is that equity may intervene to mitigate the inequitable consequences of a breach.”

Continue Reading

by

Our firm was recently retained to provide an amicus brief to an Arbitration Board, for purposes of helping the arbitrator to resolve a commercial landlord tenant dispute, in which the Tenant had stopped paying rent, ostensibly due to habitability defects, affecting both the leased premises and the common area. The Landlord responded by declaring a default in the commercial justice_srb_2lease and promptly sought eviction based on that default. The questions before the arbitrator were the following:

  1. Who bears responsibility for curing habitability defects to the roof and the common area?
  2. Does the Tenant’s failure to pay rent constitute a Default that would result in termination of the tenancy?
Continue Reading

by

Our office has previously reported on the subject of removing property that had been abandoned by a tenant. The general procedure, in those instances, requires a landlord to not only obtain a judgment for possession against the tenant, but to also provide the tenant with 30 days advance notice of his or her right to claim those belongs. In the event that the tenant’s belongings are not claimed within that period of time, the landlord may dispose of the tenant’s belongings. This procedure, however, does not apply to abandoned motor vehicles. In today’s article, we will briefly discuss the landlord’s procedure for removal of motor vehicles, which have been presumably abandoned by tenants.

In some instances, where the police are willing to intercede, the landlord can request that the abandoned vehicle be “ticketed” by the police, and then towed by a towing company. The owner of the vehicle will then be responsible for towing and storage fees, and may be subject to additional penalties, including loss of license. See Senate Bill 1173.

In cases where the police are not willing to intercede, the landlord should first apply to New Jersey Motor Vehicle Service to have the vehicle declared abandoned. Motor Vehicle Services will require that the landlord complete the following documents in order to complete this process:

Continue Reading